ARTISAN, MUMBAI V. ASST CIR 18(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7145/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3759 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -ABENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMIT SHUKLA,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.7145/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ARTISAN, 340,JAIGOPAL INDS.ESTATE,B.S.ROAD, DADAR(WEST)-MUMBAI-400 028 . PAN:AAAFA 2327 E VS. ASSTT. CIT-18(2) MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR -DR A SSESSEE BY:MS.NEELAM JADHAV / DATE OF HEARING :01.03.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 28.09.2012 OF CIT(A)-29 ,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE-FIRM,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF MANUFACTURING OF PHOTO ALBUMS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 05.09.2007,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.18.66 LAKHS.THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT,U/S.1 43(3) OF THE ACT, ON 30.09. 2009,DETER - MINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.20,61,550 /-. BRIEF FACTS: 2 .EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT LEVY OF PENALT Y,AMOUNTING TO RS.2.75 LAKHS,U/S.271(1) (C)OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIB UNAL AND VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24. 11. 2015 (ITA/5688/MUM/2012-AY.2007-08)THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).MEANWHILE THE AO HAD INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND LEV IED PENALTY,VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.03. 2010. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA,WHO UPHELD THE PENALTY-ORDER. 3. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR)STATED THAT QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA,THAT PENALTY O RDER WAS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD SENT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION,WHILE DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEAL.THEREFORE,WE ARE ALSO R EMITTING BACK THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY TO HIS FILE.THE FAA IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE QUEST ION OF LEVY OF PENALTY AFTER DECIDING THE MAIN APPEAL AND AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE,IN PART. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED . . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST ,MARCH , 2016. 7145/MUM/12ARTISAN. 2 1, , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / AMIT SHUKLA) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED :01.03.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.